Intelligent Diplomacy and Statesmanship- Obama For the Win

[VtSteve]

One thing liberals could learn from this, and many Repubs as well. It takes more than one person to run a country, and you can pretty much bet all your money that things as serious as current wars and secret information like nuclear bombs and rogue nations is managed by more than diplomacy and partisanship. Liberals will learn as their counterparts will, pure play partisanship dies an ugly death when a serious crisis comes up.

Just as Bush handled 9/11 pretty darn well publicly, I have no doubt Obama will handle Iran with the advice and concurrence of many experts, as well as other nations. Many of the negotiators and consultants, not to mention military planners and officers, stay on from administration to administration.

Granted, I think Bush had too many free agents on board with their own missions. I do think Obama will be smarter about some of these issues than Bush, who always seemed to have an answer for a question nobody asked. But aside from that BS, I think the country is ok, regardless of what the blowhard bloggers say.

I just wish that Bush had made the same decision Obama did about Afghanistan, not only there, but in Iraq. But regardless, you can't go back, only forward.

I love bunker busters, and the AC130 gunship

 

[jayboat]

Who doesn't love the AC130? :USA::reddevil::USA:

 

[fund razor]

Now this is bipartisan diplomacy.

Puff the magic dragon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpyFMEKQyrk

 

[Chris]

You have no idea.

 

[Ratickle]

One thing about Iran, and I would think when Obama gave up the missle defense in Europe he made some things clear, and received the support of the Russians against Iran (vocally at least).

Iran can be brought to a screeching halt almost instantly. They have oil, but only one refinery. They import almost 2/3 of their refined oil products currently. In some ways they mimic the North Koreans by putting things like Nukes ahead of things like gas, and therefore food, for their people. I think when you live as a mullah does, you think everyone else feels the same.

They have 3 Nuclear facilities, that's it. Our current bunker busters, (the small nuke ones), would end all three instantly. So, their entire country to be brought to a complete halt almost instantly by using four missles with tactical nukes. I believe the Israelies have those also, not positive.

They have only one way out for their Navy. That's it.

The one thing to remember about those idiots in charge over there though, and I always remind myself of this, they sent unarmed boys in droves, estimates over 1/4 million, across mine fields to sweep the way during their war with Iraq ahead of their tanks. So don't ever believe for a second they will make what we consider a rational decision when it comes to saving their population from anything, including a nuclear war or annihilation.

We could do it with 2 bunker-buster nukes, two conventional hits, and a fairly easy naval blockade. End of story. However, we probably could have done something similar with Iraq and chose not too. So........

 

[Ratickle]

You have no idea.

My buds in the helicopters in Nam always talk about how they were nice for clearing a landing area in the jungle.....

 

[gerritm]

Does anyone take into account this is what the nutjobs in Iran want. Isn't there some religious reason for all of this. The more chaos and war that they can create will bring their version of Jesus back and make them the rulers of the earth? I am all for turning their nuke facilites into a glass factory, but these are fanatics with a goal.

 

[LaughingCat]

Does anyone take into account this is what the nutjobs in Iran want. Isn't there some religious reason for all of this. The more chaos and war that they can create will bring their version of Jesus back and make them the rulers of the earth? I am all for turning their nuke facilites into a glass factory, but these are fanatics with a goal.

We probably all share a similar desire. . . let's nuke 'em, bring a quick end to this so we can can move on. Yet, since we have a country filled with differing views, our political leaders cannot go to an extreme without risking it all. Obama is not a gambler. He's a chess player that would gladly sacrifice a Pawn or even a Rook to acheive CheckMate

I have another rhetorical question for everyone:
Why is having the government intervene and try to help the less fortunate US citizens considered Socialism, yet blowing away another country's dictators and spending our treasury to rebuild their nation our patriotic duty?

 

[Chris]

First of all, "nuke 'em" is about as far away from true American values as you can possibly get. The problem with Iran isn't with the 75 Million Iranian citizens, it's with a handful of leaders. Similarly, in the scenario Paul suggested, hitting their refinery would cause immense human suffering within that population base. Think for a moment at what energy does in Iran. Like moving food and purifying water.

To the "why is it socialism..." point, there's a difference. And the best explanation is found in why we have no troops in sub-Saharan Africa. We have no interests there. The Middle East presents a primary and secondary challenge for us. Primarily, they are a major supplier of oil to the world. A few percentage points of supply interruption would send oil prices skyrocketing. During the first gulf war crude doubled. And there wasn't a huge disruption in supply. Imagine if 20% of the world's oil supply went away semi-permanently. We need stability in the region to ensure global stability. And severe economic instability leads to military instability. It's a bad thing for politicians to allow their constituents to starve. Our secondary challenge is our relationship with Israel. They are heavily supported by a small but very influential political base in this country. And they require catering to. Iraq was in my opinion a miscalculation. We asumed we could predict their behavior. We assumed that removing a murdering tyrant from power would curry some favor with those in Iraq that wanted him gone. Had we gotten that favor, all would have gone well. But what we unearthed was more Muslim fundamentalists that hated us. Bottom line- we need some form of stability in the region. We achieved it with Egypt and with Jordan. Iraq simply looked like a good place and evidence pointed to them being a significant threat to us.

 

[Ratickle]

Iraq was in my opinion a miscalculation. We asumed we could predict their behavior. We assumed that removing a murdering tyrant from power would curry some favor with those in Iraq that wanted him gone. Had we gotten that favor, all would have gone well. But what we unearthed was more Muslim fundamentalists that hated us. Bottom line- we need some form of stability in the region. We achieved it with Egypt and with Jordan. Iraq simply looked like a good place and evidence pointed to them being a significant threat to us.

I try to stay away from the Iraq debate because I will always say it was the stupidest possible move I have ever seen...

My exact quotes leading up to the invasion, no one is stupid enough to attack them at this time. Nothing to gain, worldwide favor to lose. Even when watching Cheney's presentation to the UN, "Look, here they are taking all of their secret WMD's away while our inspectors are on the way", argument seemed dumb to me.

We had UN inspectors all over the place, Saddam had also said he would allow flyover spy planes and US inspectors to accompany the UN inspectors, but we ordered all the inspectors out so we could attack. Sorry, in my opinion completely imbecilic.

I'll never forget, two days before we attacked, speaking to a group of businessmen, telling them there was no way we were attacking. It was a chessgame being played extremely well and that we were getting everything fixed which had agreed to be fixed in the Desert Storm surrender treaties, by having the extremely strong presence there. Plus, if everyone would remember correctly, we were the ones who helped arm Saddam to keep other regimes in the area under control. Why would we want to free up Iran plus split our Afganistan forces up to two fronts?

Then, ......:ack2:

 

[LaughingCat]

Strong points.

Regarding the regional stabalization and resource concerns, our leaders have to remember that if Iran, Iraq or Saudi Arabia were to cut-off oil supply, they would suffer far greater than us. Their entire livelihood centers on exporting oil. They may be able to satisfy their people when revenues are good. but if they cut us off, they risk civil uprisings. Their power is directly related to what crumbs they pass down. Iran is a prime example. Their people are suffering under the current sanctions and do not want to see further sanctions. So threatening to "turn their nuclear plant into glass' would simply solidify their radical's grip on power. A local example of this is how Bush rose to a 90% approval rating after 9/11.

More and more people are realizing that Iraq was an obvious blunder from the get-go. I remember sitting at a St. Patty's Day party in 2003 while the neo-Cons rallied around yellow-cake and mushroom cloud threats. While obvious to me, I couldn't believe how gullible the US citizens were. then I hear people talk about rebuilding Iraq into a democracy and doing commerce. Eerily reminded me of a line from Mel Gibson's The Patriot where the British could have had victory, but "they needed to execute the war like gentlemen so once they won, they could establish commerce with the Patriots."

We have these grand ideas of how to manipulate the world but we always overlook one solid reality: we are dealing with humans, not machines. We cannot reprogram them. We cannot invade and positively influence them. We have to work the politics so they enlighten themselves.

It becomes too obvious that our efforts, while appearing noble, look more like an effort to feed the military economic machine, than to actually accomplish the political goals we set out on.

 

[gerritm]

First of all, "nuke 'em" is about as far away from true American values as you can possibly get. The problem with Iran isn't with the 75 Million Iranian citizens, it's with a handful of leaders. Similarly, in the scenario Paul suggested, hitting their refinery would cause immense human suffering within that population base. Think for a moment at what energy does in Iran. Like moving food and purifying water.

To the "why is it socialism..." point, there's a difference. And the best explanation is found in why we have no troops in sub-Saharan Africa. We have no interests there. The Middle East presents a primary and secondary challenge for us. Primarily, they are a major supplier of oil to the world. A few percentage points of supply interruption would send oil prices skyrocketing. During the first gulf war crude doubled. And there wasn't a huge disruption in supply. Imagine if 20% of the world's oil supply went away semi-permanently. We need stability in the region to ensure global stability. And severe economic instability leads to military instability. It's a bad thing for politicians to allow their constituents to starve. Our secondary challenge is our relationship with Israel. They are heavily supported by a small but very influential political base in this country. And they require catering to. Iraq was in my opinion a miscalculation. We asumed we could predict their behavior. We assumed that removing a murdering tyrant from power would curry some favor with those in Iraq that wanted him gone. Had we gotten that favor, all would have gone well. But what we unearthed was more Muslim fundamentalists that hated us. Bottom line- we need some form of stability in the region. We achieved it with Egypt and with Jordan. Iraq simply looked like a good place and evidence pointed to them being a significant threat to us.

Maybe I used the wrong words. I am not necessarily saying that nukes are the answer, I am asking the question that is this being planned carefully by the mullahs to end that way. This is in the Koran. http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/2006/08/august_22_end_of_the.html

"A passage from the Ayatollah Khomeini, quoted in an 11th-grade Iranian schoolbook, is revealing. "I am decisively announcing to the whole world that if the world-devourers [i.e., the infidel powers] wish to stand against our religion, we will stand against their whole world and will not cease until the annihilation of all them. Either we all become free, or we will go to the greater freedom which is martyrdom. Either we shake one another's hands in joy at the victory of Islam in the world, or all of us will turn to eternal life and martyrdom. In both cases, victory and success are ours."

In this context, mutual assured destruction, the deterrent that worked so well during the Cold War, would have no meaning. At the end of time, there will be general destruction anyway. What will matter will be the final destination of the dead--hell for the infidels, and heaven for the believers. For people with this mindset, MAD is not a constraint; it is an inducement"

The 12th Iman.

Chris you are right. Stability is the answer, but that is not what they want. I don't think we have a choice in that matter. I think they are driving to this chaos and end of the world belief.

 

[LaughingCat]

Then, ......:ack2:

Agreed. I sat there yelling at the TV that Saddam has been bluffing the IRanians for years fearing they would invade. I always believed the US was clever enough to see a bluff and play the politics right. But I never took into account the will of the neo-Cons who just wanted to go in and finish the first Gulf War.

By far, the best thing to come out of toppling Saddam and the ensuing occupation debacle is that we have now confirmed the Bush Senior is FAR more intelligent than Bush Junior.

I do miss the days of having a phenomenal political tactition in office like GHWB. That's when I was a proud Republican.

 

[Wobble]

We were right to go to Iraq. We are wrong to still be there.

How is that?

 

[Chris]

There are plenty of contemporary examples of national leadership not doing what we would consider to be in their best interests. Look at what's going on in North Korea. Look back just a bit to the Iran/Iraq war where Iran send tens of tousands of their teenage boys to be slaughtered by Saddam's armored divisions.

It's like telling your kids you're going to beat their a$$es if they don't behave. If the a$$-whooping never comes, they stop believing and they behave as they will. Like it or not, every once in a while we need to remind the world that we're willing and able to be the 800 lb gorilla.

 

[fund razor]

How is that?

I would have preferred a 5 year war over a ten.

 

[jayboat]

It becomes too obvious that our efforts, while appearing noble, look more like an effort to feed the military economic machine, than to actually accomplish the political goals we set out on.

Ya think? :willy_nilly:

Good to see some rational, intelligent debate on a topic with no easy answers. :USA:

 

[Chris]

I would have preferred a 5 year war over a ten.

We needed the Nazi's to run Germany, did we think we would just magically pull experienced military and police out of the Iraqi desert? The "what happens Monday" portion of this wasn't carefully evaluated.

 

[jayboat]

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Gmail Inbox

time to lighten this up a little... Maxim gives us a peek into someone's inbox:

 

[Ratickle]

That's funny.

Heard Love was talking about going to Venezuala to see Chavez. He charmed her .......:sifone: